Phil. Trans. R. Soc.

A (2012) 370, 534–543

doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0385

I N T RO D U C T I O N

The physics, chemistry and dynamics

of explosions
B Y E LAINE S. O RAN1, * AND F ORMAN A. W ILLIAMS2
1 Laboratoriesfor Computational Physics and Fluid Dynamics, US Naval
Research Laboratory, Washington DC, USA
2 Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

The motivation for devoting a Theme Issue to explosions is discussed. As subsequent

articles in the issue are written with the assumption that the reader has had a certain
amount of previous exposure to the subject, some of the history and necessary background
information are presented here. The topics on explosions that will be encountered in the
remaining articles are previewed. Finally, several important future outstanding research
problems, beyond those addressed in the following articles, are discussed, with the
objective of complementing the coverage of explosions in this issue.
Keywords: explosion; detonation; deflagration; deflagration-to-detonation transition; turbulent
reacting flows; astrophysical explosions

1. Introduction

Explosions are ubiquitous in the Universe. Beginning with the Big Bang, the
history of the Universe has been determined largely by explosions, which disrupt
orderly progression and initiate evolution in new directions. While intergalactic
and galactic explosions are of many different types, explosions on the Earth
involve a narrower range of phenomena that are somewhat more amenable to
human understanding. Effects of explosions on humankind, both beneficial and
detrimental, have been investigated from the beginning of science, resulting
today in a degree of knowledge of their properties—their physics, chemistry
and dynamics. During the past century, this knowledge has been used both to
design explosions for specific purposes and to teach us how to avoid those that
are harmful. Any knowledge, however, can be used or misused, for actual or
misconceived benefit. Possible future advances include mitigation of explosion
hazards, improved and new combustion engines and use of inertial confinement
for the development of nuclear fusion as an energy source.

*Author for correspondence ([email protected]).

One contribution of 12 to a Theme Issue ‘The physics, chemistry and dynamics of explosions’.

534 This journal is © 2012 The Royal Society

 Introduction 535

The term explosion itself is nebulous. It generally refers to any type of

scenario in which energy is injected into a system faster than it can be smoothly
equilibrated through the system; that is, energy is deposited faster than a
dynamical time scale. For chemical or nuclear explosions, this time scale (l/cs )
is based on the characteristic size (l) of the system and the acoustic velocity
(cs ). For magnetohydrodynamic explosions, cs is replaced by the square root of
the sum of cs2 and the magnetoacoustic time scale cma2
, where cma is proportional
to the speed of Alfven waves, the square of which, in turn, is proportional to
the magnetic pressure. The result of this rapid injection of energy is a local
pressure increase. If the system is unconfined, or if the confinement is weak and
can be broken, then strong pressure waves (shock waves) develop and spread
outwards, travelling considerable distances before they are dissipated. As this
happens, over-pressurized material begins to expand, and heated material cools.
This very general description covers scenarios that range from the Big Bang, to
thermonuclear explosions in stars, to magnetohydrodynamic explosions on the
sun and to most of the chemical explosions on the Earth.
The intent of this issue on explosions is to expose the reader to some
of the many different aspects of explosion phenomena known today. The
articles here address a variety of theoretical, computational and experimental
studies of explosions, thereby demonstrating the range of methods employed in
investigations. In addition to presentations of background knowledge, underlying
theoretical formulations and their mathematical exposition, each article contains
previously unpublished research that opens up new questions and issues for
future study. An initial summary, given next, of a few basic concepts, which
in subsequent articles are assumed to be known by the reader, may facilitate
understanding of the material that is to follow.

2. Fundamentals

The basis of our present understanding began with the experimental observations
of Berthelot & Vieille [1] and Mallard & LeChatelier [2], and the theoretical
explanations of Chapman [3] and Jouguet [4], more than a century ago. Notable
advances were made by Zel’dovich [5], von Neumann [6] and Döring [7], among
many others, who identified elements of the structure (the ZND structure) of
detonations, which are the stronger of the two classical types of explosions.
The names of these nine scientists have been thoroughly associated with the
fundamental concepts that they developed. These concepts identify two distinct
steady-flow regimes, to which time-dependent explosions may evolve, or between
which time-dependent explosive transitions may occur.
It is instructive to consider the pressure–volume (p–v) diagram of a fluid as
shown in figure 1. The pressure p0 and specific volume v0 of the initial mixture
are indicated as a point in this diagram. For steady, planar, one-dimensional flow,
principles of conservation of mass, momentum and energy can be used to find the
locus of possible final states of the fluid after the heat release has occurred in
an explosion. That locus, called the Hugoniot curve, as illustrated in the figure,
consists of two disconnected parts, an upper branch and a lower branch. The
two branches must be separated for exothermic processes because application
of steady mass and momentum conservation alone requires that a straight line

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2012)

536 E. S. Oran and F. A. Williams

p
upper branch

a Rayleigh line for a detonation

Hugoniot curve

a Rayleigh line for deflagration

p0
lower branch

v0 v

Figure 1. Traditional pressure–volume (p–v) diagram showing the Hugoniot curve with possible
states of deflagrations and detonations.

connecting the initial and final states in this diagram, called the Rayleigh line
(known in gas dynamics as a trajectory for constant-area compressible flow with
heat addition), cannot have a positive slope. When the final state lies along the
lower branch of the Hugoniot curve, the process is called a deflagration, and when
it lies along the upper branch, it is a detonation.
Thus, there are two very different and distinct types of one-dimensional,
steady reaction waves propagating through homogeneous reactive material,
consistent with conservation conditions. The figure illustrates that detonations
exhibit large pressure increases and small volume decreases, while deflagrations
have large volume increases and small pressure decreases. Propagation velocities
of such fronts are proportional to the square root of the negative of the
slope of the Rayleigh line, two representative examples of which are indicated
on the figure. Propagation velocities of detonations are thus seen to exceed
those of deflagrations; detonations are found to be supersonic and deflagrations
subsonic. The figure also shows that there is a minimum velocity for detonations
and a maximum velocity for deflagrations, limiting conditions that correspond to
tangency of the Rayleigh line and the Hugoniot curve, and the associated final
conditions are called the (upper and lower) Chapman–Jouguet (CJ ) points of
the curve. Further analysis demonstrates that final fluid velocities are sonic at
the CJ points.
Except for CJ conditions, when there is any intersection at all between a
given Rayleigh line and the Hugoniot curve, there are two, as can be seen in
the figure. Therefore, there are two different types of each process. From the
slopes, it is seen that both types of deflagrations travel slower than CJ, and
both types of detonations faster. The first intersection is called weak and the

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2012)

 Introduction 537

second strong. Final fluid velocities are supersonic for strong deflagrations and
for weak detonations, while they are subsonic in the other two cases. Although
strong deflagrations have been postulated for certain galactic winds, all known
deflagrations on the Earth are weak, approaching CJ only for highly turbulent,
energetic flames. On the other hand, most detonations are CJ, although both
weak and strong detonations occur. Strong detonations often arise for periods of
time in transitions from deflagrations to detonations (DDTs). Laboratory studies
of chemical kinetics in shock tubes, when exothermic overall, in principle also
are strong detonations for the entire shock-tube test time. On the other hand,
condensation ‘shocks’ in wind tunnels are weak detonations.
Explosions, however, are dynamic processes that often are neither the classical
deflagrations nor the classical detonations described by steady-state flows
in homogeneous backgrounds with perfectly unobtrusive geometries. As an
example, consider the preceding conclusion that detonations are supersonic and
deflagrations subsonic; this will be seen in a later article to not always be true
for porous media. Although pressure changes associated with deflagrations are
smaller than those associated with detonations, the expansion and heating that
occur in deflagrations cause pressure build-up, especially in confined spaces.
This can be quite damaging and thereby causes the processes to be classified
as explosions, even though detonations do not develop. In many instances, these
pressure waves and their associated heating produce DDT. The most damaging
explosions, however, are generally detonations because they have the highest
pressures. Pressures even higher than those in CJ detonations can occur in
transient processes, such as shock–shock interactions and strong detonations,
which precede the completion of DDT. Depending on the specific configuration
and both the reactivity and the energetics of the combustible mixtures, periods
may occur in which there is supersonic front propagation slower than CJ, and
such slow (sometimes called ‘weak’) detonations are types of explosions that may
not transform fully to CJ and that cannot be classical steadily propagating fronts.
Nevertheless, they may be very damaging and therefore need to be understood.
There thus exist many non-classical types of explosions requiring further study.

3. Topics in this Theme Issue

The first article in this issue presents an examination of one of the largest
recent accidental chemical explosions. The explosion at Buncefield, UK, in 2005
is unique in that it is unusual to have such a thorough investigation of a large-
scale, accidental, statistically improbable event. Questions raised by the forensics
committee included the following. What caused the fuel spillage? How did it
ignite? Do we know enough to understand the dynamics of the turbulent flame
development and propagation? What was the role of the obstacles in the path of
the explosion front? And finally, did a detonation develop at any stage? This first
article, by Bradley et al. [8], summarizes the work of the technical investigation
committee, presents the current state of the analysis of this event, puts it in
the context of other historic large-scale accidental explosions and then describes
where future research is required. This needed research, such as the research
reported in the subsequent articles in this issue, goes well beyond the idealizations
identified earlier.

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2012)

538 E. S. Oran and F. A. Williams

The ZND detonation structure envisions steady, planar flow with heat release
initiated by the temperature rise across a strong planar shock wave (as in
many shock-tube experiments). Evidence that this picture is much too simplified
for most real-world explosions can be at least traced to the observations
of spinning detonations by Campbell & Woodhead [9], and clear recognition
of the prevalent existence of multi-dimensional structures was provided by
Denisov & Troshin [10]. We now know that the ZND structure is generally
unstable, evolving into cellular detonation structures that range from regular
diamond patterns to very complex dynamic interactions of shock waves, reaction
regions and shear layers behind leading shock fronts. In the second article,
Kessler et al. [11] use multi-dimensional numerical simulations to study these
phenomena. By extending the computations to detonation propagation normal
to a gradient of stoichiometry, they identify upstream (behind the detonation
front) reaction regions into which reactants diffuse from opposite sides. This
region is bounded by rich and lean reaction regions, and the result is a triple-
flame detonation wave. This type of gradient of fuel concentration could develop
in the more complex spatial and temporal fuel distributions that occur in
explosion-prone situations, such as in tunnels in coal mines or during industrial
fuel leakages.
Complementing this computational work are the analytical studies in the third
article; Clavin & Williams [12] present a unified formulation that covers a range
of detonation topics, including initiation, propagation, quenching, pulsation and
cellular structure. Asymptotic analyses are discussed here for the limit of strongly
temperature-sensitive rates of heat release and for the Newtonian limit in which
the difference between constant-pressure and constant-volume heat capacities
vanishes (assumed by Isaac Newton and found to be surprisingly accurate for
high-temperature real gases in hypersonics). Planar detonations are shown to be
unstable to shear-wave disturbances, even when the heat-release rate is insensitive
to temperature, with a weakly nonlinear analysis indicating that this bifurcation
leads to distinct diamond patterns. This article also clarifies conflicting literature
concerning the stability of shock waves in general non-ideal fluids, deriving for
the first time the boundary between decaying and non-radiating, non-decaying
stable shock discontinuities.
The next two articles are theoretical and experimental investigations,
respectively, of explosions in porous media. The first, by Brailovsky et al. [13],
summarizes implications of a simplified mathematical model based on the concept
of hydraulic resistance. Introduction of the hydraulic-resistance approximation
reduces the order of the differential equations that describe the detonation and
deflagration processes, thereby facilitating their solution and making it easier
to understand their predictions. For these reasons, it is important to determine
experimentally the extent to which the model can correspond to reality, and
a new favourable comparison is identified (called Shchelkin’s effect there). The
experimental observations and measurements reported by Ciccarelli [14], in the
second of these articles, expose experimental similarities and differences between
explosion propagation in porous media and in chambers filled with obstacles.
These results are quite revealing; they show, in particular, structures of explosions
in the low-velocity slow-detonation regime, where the propagation velocities of
the fronts are between cs and the CJ detonation velocity. It is made clear
here that acquisition of detailed, local data on explosions in porous media is

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2012)

 Introduction 539

a challenging experimental task. These studies are important, especially to the

extent that porous-media results can be applied to industrial-accident situations
with obstacles in the flow.
The authors of the next article, Chiquete & Tumin [15], follow in the path of
investigators who have performed mathematical stability calculations of planar
detonations. Here, they specifically consider, for the first time, influences of
slightly porous walls in circular tubes, and they compare their results with those
for an impenetrable wall. The analysis and associated numerical results provide
a clear example of effective methods for tackling problems of this kind.
The next two articles, again the first somewhat more theoretical and the
second somewhat more experimental, address the development of explosions in
various types of chambers and for various combustible mixtures. Bradley [16] first
explains a well-developed, coherent viewpoint of the explosion processes in spark-
ignition, internal-combustion engines. This study of explosions, which are at the
smallest scale considered in this issue, indicates how and when engine knock
may occur. Ideas are extended to explosion development in ducts, including a
summary of results for turbulent deflagration velocities. By contrast, Thomas [17]
summarizes results of extensive experimental studies of DDT, both in gaseous and
in solid explosives. In addition to addressing a number of different processes, such
as detonation development in gradients of fuel concentration and the transmission
and diffraction of detonation waves at junctions, the interactions of different scales
in explosion phenomena are described. A major concern of Thomas has been to
produce experimental results on very hard problems that are amenable to further
study and analysis by numerical simulations. An example of this, described in the
article, is the ‘strange wave’ phenomena, involving the coupling of a shock, a flame
and a boundary layer.
The last two articles strike out in quite different directions. First, Starikovskiy
et al. [18] describe the physics and chemistry of plasma-assisted ignition in
combustion processes, and then they show how this can be used to promote
DDT for use in engines that employ detonations for propulsive purposes, either
continuously, as in rotating-detonation engines, or periodically, as in pulsed-
detonation engines. Plasma-assisted combustion is an extensive topic in itself, one
that requires consideration of ionized states of atoms and molecules. Although
knowledge of the complex kinetics of such ionized states has been developed for
specific applications, such as atmospheric and ionospheric chemical reactions or
solar coronal thermonuclear reactions, they are not generally known for the usual
hydrocarbon molecules involved in combustion problems. The authors of this
penultimate article describe what is known, and we can thus infer how much we
will need to learn to properly use plasmas to enhance combustion.
Finally, Wheeler [19] addresses the many types of astrophysical explosions
currently under discussion in astrophysics, bringing us up to date on some of
the latest work and theory. These explosions include magnetohydrodynamic and
thermonuclear energy sources, mentioned previously, and gravitational collapse
is also considered. It is noteworthy how atomic, nuclear and plasma physics
interact with turbulence and transport of particles, photons and neutrinos as
critical ingredients in these problems, which involve extraordinarily wide ranges of
relevant scales. Explosions of white-dwarf start lead to type Ia supernova (SNIa),
which have become the ‘standard candles’ of our Universe. Wheeler discusses how
measuring SNIa spectra and red shifts leads to the most consistent determination

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2012)

540 E. S. Oran and F. A. Williams

of the rate of expansion and size of the Universe. Understanding why SNIa are so
uniform involves understanding the evolution of turbulent flames and detonations
in the thermonuclear environment in the star, which certainly is a challenging
topic in explosions.

4. Other future research directions

An important question not addressed in the following articles concerns explosion

limits. It is commonly accepted that there are reactive mixtures which are too
dilute, too fuel lean or too fuel rich to explode under any circumstances. Moreover,
the literature contains extensive tabulations of flammability limits for various
combustibles, specifying, for example, upper and lower deflagration limits, such
that deflagrations cannot persist in mixtures richer than the upper limit or leaner
than the lower limit. There are also explosion-limit diagrams, in which explosions
are known to occur spontaneously in mixtures lying between these limits; these
spontaneous explosion limits are narrower than deflagration limits and are of
less interest in the present context. In addition to deflagration limits, there are
detonation limits, although less data are available for detonations. Despite a
common belief that limits of detonability are narrower than deflagration limits,
fundamentally this need not be true. The chemical kinetics of detonations differs
from deflagrations in that they require initiation steps in which chain carriers are
formed, while the chain carriers are already present in deflagrations. To delineate
mixtures in which the most severe types of explosions may occur, it is of interest
to determine limits of detonation.
It is well known that limits of detonation of combustible mixtures in chambers
depend on the dimensions of the chamber. A detonation propagating past a
stationary wall develops a boundary layer on the wall behind the leading shock,
and the influence of this boundary layer on the flow can tend to weaken
the detonation. For a detonation in a long circular tube of diameter d, the
propagation velocity decreases with decreasing values of d, and at a critical
diameter, the propagation ceases. The value of this limiting diameter depends
on the composition of the mixture. Figure 2 is a graph of experimental results
for the value of 1/d at this critical diameter for methane–air mixtures initially at
room temperature and normal atmospheric pressure [20–22]. It has been standard
procedure to extrapolate such plots to 1/d = 0 to define detonability limits of
combustible mixtures in the open. It may be seen from this figure that, prior
to 2011, this extrapolation would have led to the conclusion that methane–air
mixtures with less than 6 per cent or more than 14 per cent methane on a volume
basis would lie outside the limits of detonation. However, the recent data seen in
the wings clearly demonstrate that this conclusion would be false. Tabulated
detonability limits for methane are in error. Further research to determine
ultimate limits of detonation is warranted. As it becomes increasingly difficult
to generate explosions in such near-limit mixtures, it is important to also study
what is required for their initiation.
Another significant area of investigation is the control of explosions. Depending
on the particular situation, there is interest in generating explosions, preventing
them, or quenching them once they develop. There are many different ideas about
explosion control. One article in this issue discusses the use of plasmas for control.

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2012)

 Introduction 541

25

1/d (m–1) 20

15

10

0
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
% CH4

Figure 2. Measured lean and rich detonation limits for methane in air as a function of the per cent
of methane by volume. Limits are shown for four values of 1/d, the inverse of the diameter of the
test device. Names and symbols refer to earlier studies (squares, Kogarko [20]; triangles, Matsui
[21]; circles, Gamezo et al. [22]).

Relief valves and blow-out caps are common explosion-control devices. There have
been studies of detonation arrestors, for example, employing narrow channels,
porous materials, dust dispersions, water sprays, water-filled passages, etc. There
have been methods for extinguishing explosions that attempt to disperse inert
rock dust or placing buckets of water to be overturned during an explosion. But
the task is confusing and difficult. Methods that appear to damp explosions under
some conditions enhance them under other conditions. We would like to be able to
control transients, to change the explosion state, so that we can ignite, enhance or
quench at will, turn detonations into deflagrations or taylor the process of DDT.
Much more understanding is necessary to achieve these objectives.
Finally, more research is needed on the role of turbulence in explosions.
A half-century ago, when the ZND detonation structure was widely accepted
as universal, fine-scale shadowgraph observations surprisingly suggested that
detonations were turbulent. Improvements in resolution soon showed that this
turbulence, in reality, was the now-familiar regular cellular diamond pattern.
Today, with greatly improved experimental techniques, especially for detonations
having highly irregular, somewhat chaotic cell structures, reacting shear layers
behind leading shocks are often described as turbulent. The true nature of
this kind of turbulence, however, remains to be determined. As high-speed
deflagrations interact with shock waves and boundary layers, they are subject
to shock-related and shear-flow instabilities that may generate turbulence of
character different from that which is commonly understood. More thought is
thus warranted about turbulence in all types of explosions.

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2012)

542 E. S. Oran and F. A. Williams

There is now a great deal of knowledge about turbulence in fluids, which has
been employed to construct diagrams for turbulent combustion, with different
types of combustion processes reasoned to occur in different parts of the diagrams.
One selection of coordinates for such a diagram is a turbulence Reynolds number
and a turbulence Damköhler number, the ratio of a turbulence time scale to
a chemical time scale [23]. Turbulent combustion is considered to occur in a
distributed manner at low Damköhler numbers and in sheets at high Damköhler
numbers, for example. Questions arise, however, as to whether such a classification
is sufficient for explosions.
In a recent computational study showing DDT in unconfined systems [24],
compressibility effects suggest that a Mach number should be considered as
a coordinate for classifying regimes of turbulent combustion. This possibility
remains to be explored. Turbulent combustion computations for SNIa employ
classical turbulence concepts, but in that application, the associated Lewis
number, the ratio of the heat diffusivity to the reactant diffusivity, is very large, of
the order of 1000 or more. Even laminar deflagrations, however, are known to be
unstable to pulsating instabilities at large Lewis numbers, approaching a pulsating
type of chaos, a turbulence quite different from that known for fluids, for Lewis
numbers greater than about 10, thereby calling into question the basis of the
standard candle. Consideration therefore perhaps should be given to including
the Lewis number as a coordinate for diagrams of turbulent combustion. Thus,
much remains to be learned about turbulence in explosions.

5. Concluding comment

The breadth of topics covered by the word ‘explosions’ is enormous, ranging,

for example, from solid explosives used in mining and demolition to nuclear
explosions for interplanetary travel, from gamma-ray bursts to air-bag inflators.
In all of these, the basic underlying physical principles share much in common,
but the specific materials, applications and scenarios differ wildly. In this brief
introduction, we have first tried to summarize the most fundamental explosion
concepts that underpin all of the articles that follow. We have then attempted
to emphasize at least one important aspect from each of the articles and, at the
same time, to point out the relationships among the different topics. Each article
also indicates directions for future research, which we have supplemented with
a short (and certainly incomplete) description of current problems that are not
covered in depth in the articles. We hope that this brief introduction and the
articles that now follow will provide useful perspectives on explosions.
This work was supported by the Naval Research Laboratory through the Office of Naval Research
and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research. We also gratefully acknowledge the hospitality and
support of the Nordic Institute for the Theoretical Physics programme on ‘Turbulent Combustion’,
during which part of this work was carried out.

References
1 Berthelot, M. & Vieille, P. 1881 On the propagation velocity of explosion phenomena. Acad.
Sci. Comptes Rendus Math. 93, 18–22.
2 Mallard, E. & LeChatelier, H. L. 1881 On the flame propagation velocity in explosive gas
mixtures. Acad. Sci. Comptes Rendus Math. 93, 145–148.

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2012)

 Introduction 543

3 Chapman, D. L. 1899 On the rate of explosion in gases. Philos. Mag. 47, 90–104.
4 Jouguet, E. 1905 On the propagation of chemical reactions in gases. J. Math. Pures Appl. 6,
347–425.
5 Zel’dovich, Y. B. 1940 On the theory of the propagation of detonation in gaseous systems.
J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 10, 542–568.
6 von Neumann, J. 1942 Theory of detonation waves. Report no. 549, Progress Report no. 238
(April), Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD), Washington, DC.
7 Döring, W. 1943 On the detonation process in gases. Ann. Phys. 43, 421–436.
8 Bradley, D., Chamberlain, G. A. & Drysdale, D. D. 2012 Large vapour cloud explosions, with
particular reference to that at Buncefield. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 370, 544–566. (doi:10.1098/
rsta.2011.0419)
9 Campbell, C. & Woodhead, D. W. 1926 The ignition of gases an explosive wave. J. Chem. Soc.
2, 3010–3021. (doi:10.1039/jr9262903010)
10 Denisov, Y. N. & Troshin, Y. K. 1959 Pulsating and spinning detonation of gaseous mixtures
in tubes. Dokl. Akad. Nauk. 125, 110–113.
11 Kessler, D. A., Gamezo, V. N. & Oran, E. S. 2012 Gas-phase detonation propagation in mixture
composition gradients. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 370, 567–596. (doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0342)
12 Clavin, P. & Williams, F. A. 2012 Analytical studies of the dynamics of gaseous detonations.
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 370, 597–624. (doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0345)
13 Brailovsky, I., Kagan, L. & Sivashinsky, G. 2012 Combustion waves in hydraulically resisted
systems. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 370, 625–646. (doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0341)
14 Ciccarelli, G. 2012 Explosion propagation in inert porous media. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 370,
647–667. (doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0346)
15 Chiquete, C. & Tumin, A. 2012 Stability of detonation in a circular pipe with porous walls.
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 370, 668–688. (doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0343)
16 Bradley, D. 2012 Autoignitions and detonations in engines and ducts. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A
370, 689–714. (doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0367)
17 Thomas, G. 2012 Some observations on the initiation and onset of detonation. Phil. Trans. R.
Soc. A 370, 715–739. (doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0368)
18 Starikovskiy, A., Aleksandrov, N. & Rakitin, A. 2012 Plasma-assisted ignition and deflagration-
to-detonation transition. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 370, 740–773. (doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0344)
19 Wheeler, J. C. 2012 Astrophysical explosions: from solar flares to cosmic gamma-ray bursts.
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 370, 774–799. (doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0351)
20 Kogarko, S. M. 1959 Detonation of methane–air mixtures and the detonation limits of
hydrocarbon–air mixtures in a large-diameter pipe. Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 3, 1904–1916.
21 Matsui, H. 2002 Detonation propagation limits in homogeneous and heterogeneous systems.
J. Phys. IV 12, 11–17. (doi:10.1051/jp4:20020262)
22 Gamezo, V. N. et al. In press. Detonability of natural gas–air mixtures. Combust. Flame.
(doi:10.1016/j.combustflame.2011.08.009)
23 Williams, F. A. 2001 Some recent studies in turbulent combustion. In Smart control of turbulent
combustion (ed. A. Yoshida), pp. 1–11. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
24 Poludnenko, A. Y., Gardner, T. A. & Oran, E. S. 2011 Spontaneous transition of turbulent
flames to detonations in unconfined media. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 054 501–054 514. (doi:10.1103/
PhysRevLett.107.054501)

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2012)